Dear Millennium3,
Thank you for sharing your points concerning Bhutan. I am quite familiar with the Constitutional Monarchy that is currently reigning, the changes that were made to increase ‘democracy’, and the King’s highly decent work concerning the happiness of his ’subjects’ (the happiness question in the Bhutan census has sparked a great deal of work worldwide in the form of the Happiness Index, various happiness research institutions, and civil society bodies working to create greater happiness for all).
The institutions which we currently practice (such as representation, parliaments, etc) and typically associate with democracy or BEING democracy are in no way requisites of democracy (please see my long post to Aardvark, unless it is not clear, and if so please ask me to explain better). The people of Bhutan (there were a fair deal of calls commensurate with ‘royalist’ sympathizers to constitutionalise the monarchy, provide more checks and balances, and create access ‘democracy’) during their monarchy were still living their own style of democracy. They had their own understandings and confrontations concerning equality, the rule of law, political communication (between all bodies), and the way they select their rulers. They were also dealing with – to various degrees – the seven endemic problems in their quest to improve their unique human condition and achieve justice. I see nothing wrong with a monarchy as long as the ruler is there by the will of the plural citizenry. If he or she is not, that’s when you will see greater calls for the institutions our ancestors developed (like constitutions, parliaments, voting, representation, etc) to curb the power(s) of the monarch or lop off their head.
Frankly, there is no place in the world where the will of the plural citizenry is explicitly expressed in all of its general nuances as the way governments work are from the short- to medium-term with insufficient information gathering (and way too much irrelevant information bombarding public servants). It is a long-term process to ascertain these general nuances and to properly portray the matrix of a plural society’s will. I recommend the use of a ’super-census’ in my thesis.
The super-census increases the variety of information gathered from citizens (like focusing on happiness, work/life balance, environmental concerns, etc), starting at local governments. Once local governments have completed the super-census and analyzed the data (thus achieving their relevant matrix), this information is then passed up to regional and or state/provincial governments who do the same data compilation. They then pass it up to the state/provincial or country level for more data analysis. At the top of the pyramid, the country can decide to send its results to all other levels of governance and or to MNOs such as the UN to assist in gaining funding, or whatever needs the state has. It is a long-term process that takes years to do as the goal is to question every single person from 16 years of age and up, but ultimately provides far more information than has ever been achieved by the typical census, polling, surveys, voting analysis, or ‘bot’ searches. We just need the leadership to make it happen. I say legitimate governance cannot happen without legitimate information!
I look forward to discussing this more with you,
Jean-Paul
Post a Comment